One Year Later—and Still No Decision

Consider two Zimbabwean applicants living in South Africa.

This is where a mandamus application may become relevant.

What Is a Mandamus Application?

A mandamus application is a High Court application that seeks to compel a public authority to perform a legal or statutory duty that it has failed to perform.

A mandamus application does not ask the court to replace Home Affairs as the immigration decision-maker. The court is ordinarily not being asked to grant the visa, approve the permanent residence permit or uphold the appeal.

The court is being asked to bring the unreasonable administrative delay to an end. If appropriate relief is granted, Home Affairs may be ordered to decide the application within a defined period.

The eventual outcome could still be an approval or a refusal, depending on the merits of the underlying application.

That is why the strength and completeness of the underlying immigration application should also be assessed before litigation is pursued.

Can Taking Home Affairs to Court Result in Victimisation?

Applicants are understandably concerned about this.

Many foreign nationals fear that legally escalating their case could irritate officials or cause their application to be refused. But a properly conducted mandamus application is not misconduct, intimidation or an attempt to bypass the law.

It is the lawful use of South Africa’s constitutional and administrative-law system.

Section 33 of the Constitution protects the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, commonly known as PAJA, gives effect to that right.

Section 6(2)(g) of PAJA recognises that a failure to take a decision may be reviewed where there has been an unreasonable delay. In Thusi v Minister of Home Affairs and Another, the court recognised that this provision permits an aggrieved person to seek mandatory relief where an administrator has failed to make a decision that it was legally required to make.

An immigration application should therefore still be decided according to:

• The Immigration Act and applicable regulations;
• The facts of the application;
• The documents submitted;
• The applicant’s eligibility; and
• Any lawful considerations relevant to the visa, permit or appeal.

The fact that an applicant lawfully requested judicial intervention to end an unreasonable delay should not, by itself, determine the merits of the immigration application.

When Does a Delay Become Unreasonable?

There is no universal rule that every application pending for one year automatically qualifies for a mandamus application.

The assessment is more detailed.

Relevant considerations may include:

• The category of application;
• The Department’s published turnaround time;
• The total length of the delay;
• Whether the application is complete;
• Whether Home Affairs requested additional documents;
• The number and nature of previous follow-ups;
• Whether meaningful reasons for the delay were provided;
• The practical harm caused to the applicant;
• Whether another adequate remedy is available; and
• Whether Home Affairs has been formally placed on notice.

Published turnaround times provide an important benchmark. The Department’s published periods include:

These are benchmarks rather than automatic court orders. Nevertheless, where the applicable period has passed substantially, ordinary follow-ups have failed and the delay is causing real prejudice, legal escalation may deserve serious consideration.

A one-year delay in a category with a published period of 120 working days raises different questions from a permanent residence application that has only just reached its published 240-working-day period.

Every case must be assessed individually.

The 30 June 2027 Concession: Protection, but Not a Permanent Solution

Immigration Directive No. 7 of 2026 took effect on 1 April 2026. It grants qualifying applicants whose waiver, long-term visa or long-term visa appeal applications were pending at the relevant date a temporary extension until 30 June 2027.

For qualifying pending long-term visa applicants, the directive temporarily extends their existing visa status. It does not create new work, study or business rights.

The directive also applies only where the stated requirements are satisfied, including that the applicant:

• Was legally admitted into South Africa;
• Submitted the relevant application through VFS Global; and
• Can produce a receipt verifiable against the VFS tracking system.

The concession ceases when the applicant receives an outcome. The person must then comply with that decision immediately.

That difference matters greatly for applicants such as Tawanda.

Can Zimbabwean Applicants Travel While Their Visa Application Is Pending?

The directive provides that qualifying visa holders awaiting long-term visa outcomes may depart from and re-enter South Africa up to and including 30 June 2027 without being declared undesirable under section 30(1)(h), read with regulation 27(3).

Applicants from countries that are not visa-exempt must ordinarily obtain a port-of-entry visa before returning.

Zimbabwean passport holders are generally visa-exempt for qualifying short visits, subject to the applicable exemption conditions. A qualifying Zimbabwean applicant would therefore not ordinarily face the additional port-of-entry visa requirement imposed on nationals of non-visa-exempt countries.

This should not be interpreted as an unconditional guarantee of re-entry. Travellers should carry:

• A valid Zimbabwean passport;
• Their existing or expired visa, as applicable;
• The original VFS receipt or verifiable proof of submission;
• A copy of Immigration Directive No. 7 of 2026;
• Evidence of the pending application; and
• Any additional documents relevant to their circumstances.

Admission remains subject to immigration examination at the port of entry and compliance with the directive and applicable visa-exemption conditions.

Pending appeal applicants should also carry their rejection letter and proof that the appeal was submitted, as specifically required by the directive.

Why 30 June 2027 Is Closer Than It Appears

The concession is valuable, but it should not become a reason to ignore a seriously delayed application.

A temporary concession may protect qualifying applicants from immediate status consequences, but it does not:

• Decide the visa application;
• Resolve the appeal;
• Approve permanent residence;
• Give new employment rights;
• Remove the uncertainty affecting an employer or family;
• Guarantee that the concession will be extended again; or
• Eliminate the need to prepare a proper legal case.

A mandamus process is not instantaneous. It may involve:

1. Reviewing the application and delay history;
2. Obtaining receipts, correspondence and tracking records;
3. Assessing the merits of the underlying application;
4. Documenting the prejudice caused by the delay;
5. Sending a formal demand or pre-litigation notice;
6. Allowing Home Affairs a reasonable opportunity to respond;
7. Preparing and issuing High Court papers if necessary;
8. Serving the relevant parties; and
9. Managing responses, negotiations or a hearing.

Some matters move after a formal legal notice. Others only progress after court papers have been issued. Certain matters may ultimately require an order from a judge.

Because the process takes time, waiting until May or June 2027 to begin assessing a long-standing delay could place the applicant under unnecessary pressure.

What Evidence Is Usually Needed?

A delayed-application assessment generally starts with a clear documentary record.

This may include:

• Passport biodata page;
• Current and previous visas;
• VFS application receipt;
• Application reference number;
• Full copy of the submitted application, if available;
• Online tracking records;
• Emails and other correspondence with VFS or Home Affairs;
• Proof of previous follow-ups;
• Requests for additional documents and proof of response;
• Rejection letter and appeal receipt, where applicable;
• Evidence of employment, family, financial or travel prejudice; and
• A chronological timeline of the matter.

A mandamus case becomes easier to assess when the history can be demonstrated through documents rather than memory alone.

A Structured Mandamus Process

Waiting Is Not Always a Neutral Decision

For Tariro, another year of waiting could affect her work, marriage, finances and ability to plan her future.

For Tawanda, the permanent residence delay means continuing to maintain a separate temporary status, with the costs and risks that accompany repeated visa processes.

For another applicant, the prejudice may involve:

• Being unable to accept a promotion;
• Being unable to change employers;
• Postponing a business investment;
• Living apart from a spouse or child;
• Difficulty accessing financial services;
• Repeated visa-renewal expenses;
• Uncertainty about international travel; or
• Inability to make long-term personal decisions.

When ordinary follow-ups no longer produce progress, continued waiting becomes a decision with consequences.

Your Future Should Not Be Left Waiting

A mandamus application is not appropriate for every delayed immigration matter. Litigation should be considered carefully, proportionately and only after the relevant facts have been assessed.

But where a visa, permanent residence permit or appeal has remained undecided for an unreasonable period, South African administrative law provides a lawful route through which accountability may be enforced.

If your application has been pending for more than one year, ordinary follow-ups have stopped producing meaningful progress and the delay is affecting your work, family, travel or future planning, now is the time to have your matter professionally assessed.

Do not wait until 30 June 2027 is at your doorstep before learning whether legal escalation may be appropriate.